Friday, January 25, 2013

A report received yesterday by Gun Rights Examiner indicates at least one military installation is still destroying expended ammunition
brass, despite a furor raised in the gun community a few years back
that resulted in two senators intervening to stop the practice and allow
for its resale for reloading. The Dec. 2012 Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for Fort Drum,
N.Y., marked “Revision 1,” describes its policy for brass and expended
munitions as part of its installation recycling program, which includes
rendering expended ammunition brass unsuitable for anything but scrap.

“Brass from expended ammunition/munitions is recycled,” the report
advises. “Expended munitions must be free of any explosive hazard or
residue and be crushed, shredded or otherwise destroyed prior to public
sale.

“At Fort Drum, brass from expended ammunition is processed through a
brass deformer machine located at the transfer station,” the description
continues. “The deformed brass is purchased by a scrap metal vendor who
reports the weighed amount to the QRP [Qualified Recycling Program]
Manager. The proceeds from the sale of the scrap metal are deposited
into the designated QRP account.”

This is a reversal of an understanding given to Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester after they wrote a letter expressing legal concerns to the Defense Logistics Agency in 2010.

Federal District Court Judge Reed O'Conner has ruled that 10 ICE agents
and officers have standing to challenge in Federal court the so-called
Morton Memo on prosecutorial discretion and the DREAM directive on
deferred action. The agents filed their complaint in October, charging
that unconstitutional and illegal directives from DHS Secretary Janet
Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton order the agents to violate
federal laws or face adverse employment actions. This is a major first
step for the ICE agents in their case against the administration.

In his 35-page decision,
Judge O'Conner found that the ICE agents and officers have standing,
but that the State of Mississippi does not. He has not yet ruled,
however, on the agents' motion for a preliminary injunction to halt
implementation of the DHS directives.

The primary impetus for the lawsuit came last June, when Secretary
Napolitano issued a memo offering deferred action and employment
authorization to illegal aliens under age 31 who meet certain criteria
similar to those outlined in the DREAM Act, which has failed to pass
Congress on three occasions.

A Colorado man who lived near a park crafted explosives he claimed
could kill everyone within 20 meters, hoping to trade the bombs and
other weapons for cocaine or cash, authorities said.

Special agents with the
federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives arrested
Richard Sandberg, 35, on Thursday morning as he was heading to work,
said Jeffrey Dorschner, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Colorado.

In the afternoon, he
appeared in federal court, where he was ordered held without bond until
at least a detention hearing Tuesday.

His arrest followed an
undercover sting that revealed the suspect had an arsenal of "homemade"
improvised explosive devices and military-grade grenades in his suburban
Denver home, according to an affidavit filed by an ATF agent in federal
court.

The investigation began a
week ago, when a Denver police detective alerted an ATF agent about a
claim from a "reliable" informant.

The informant had gone to
Sandberg's house and saw "numerous hand firearms and hand grenades" the
suspect "wanted to trade ... for cocaine," according to the affidavit.

That night, an undercover
ATF agent talked over the phone with Sandberg, who said he was a former
member of a Marine special operations unit.

He claimed to have 18 M67
grenades -- which are available only in the military -- that he said
he'd sell for $300 each, the ATF agent wrote.

According to the
affidavit, Sandberg said he'd built some explosive devices with items
available at hardware stores. He said you'd need a "formula" to know how
to make them blow up -- and they had a "kill zone" of 20 meters and a
"hurt zone" of 60 meters.

Foley, a student at Savannah State University, was
inside her Volkswagen Beetle near her residence at Colonial Village at
Marsh Cove off White Bluff Road when she was fatally shot about 7 p.m.,
Miller said. He indicated Monday evening officers had found her on the
ground outside the vehicle but they were uncertain how she got there.

Police
released no other information, but Miller said violent crimes
detectives Tuesday were continuing to investigate the shooting and were
working to identify anyone who may have been in the area when it
occurred.

Foley had moved to Savannah from Summerville to attend
college, said Mitchell Bush, her employer for nearly two years at the
Bush Insurance Agency.

Bush described her as a happy person who was trying to find her life’s calling.
“She
was a sweet, lovely child,” Bush said. “She had a gorgeous smile that
you’ll never forget. She was just a very bright, hard working, focused
person who got along with everyone.

“I’ve never known her to have any problems, you know. Why someone would take her life is just beyond comprehension.”

President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the
Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals
court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess
appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who
made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking
his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

The ruling also throws into question Obama's recess appointment of
Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Cordray's appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been
challenged in a separate case.

Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments
because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the
three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session
when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called "pro forma"
sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats have in the past as well
— to specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power.
GOP lawmakers contend the labor board has been too pro-union in its
decisions. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision to the
U.S. Supreme Court, but if it stands, it means hundreds of decisions
issued by the board over more than a year are invalid. It also would
leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed
member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue
decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.

On the very same day that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban
on women serving in active combat zones, a Democratic congresswoman
from New York argued that assault weapons are actually difficult for
women to handle and should therefore be banned.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for women serving in military combat roles — appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight
Thursday to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons
ban. To that end, McCarthy argued that women should use traditional
rifles rather than assault rifles because the former would would be
“easier for a woman” to use.

This is the best toy ever. Finally, I can pretend that I'm a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!It's like I'm sitting right there in the White House with my very own kill list!

My son is very interested in joining the Imperial forces when he grows
up. He says he's not sure if he wants to help police the homeland or if
he wants to invade foreign countries. So I thought a new Predator
drone toy would be a nice gift for him. These drones are used both
domestically and internationally, to spy on people and assassinate them
at the Emperor's discretion. He just loves flying his drone around our
house, dropping Hellfire missiles on Scruffy, our dog. He kept saying
that Scruffy was a terror suspect and needed to be taken out. I asked
him if Scruffy should get a trial first, and he quoted Lindsay Graham,
Imperial Senator: "Shut up Scruffy, you don't get a trial!" I was so
proud. I think I'll buy him some video games that promote martial law
for Christmas.

You've had a busy play day - You've wiretapped Mom's cell phone and
e-mail without a warrant, you've indefinitely detained your little
brother Timmy in the linen closet without trial, and you've confiscated
all the Super-Soakers from the neighborhood children (after all, why
does any kid - besides you, of course - even NEED a Super-Soaker for
self-defense? A regular water pistol should be enough). What do you do
for an encore?

That's where the US Air Force Medium Altitude,
Long Endurance, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) RQ-1 Predator from Maisto
comes in. Let's say that Dad has been labeled a terrorist in secret
through your disposition matrix. Rather than just arrest him and go
through the hassle of trying and convicting him in a court of law, and
having to fool with all those terrorist-loving Constitutional
protections, you can just use one of these flying death robots to
assassinate him! Remember, due process and oversight are for sissies.
Plus, you get the added bonus of taking out potential terrorists before
they've even done anything - estimates have determined that you can kill
up to 49 potential future terrorists of any age for every confirmed
terrorist you kill, and with the innovative 'double-tap' option, you can
even kill a few terrorist first responders, preventing them from
committing terrorist acts like helping the wounded and rescuing
survivors trapped in the rubble. Don't let Dad get away with
anti-American activities! Show him who's boss, whether he's at a
wedding, a funeral, or just having his morning coffee. Sow fear and
carnage in your wake! Win a Nobel Peace Prize and be declared Time
Magazine's Person of the Year - Twice!

This goes well with the
Maisto Extraordinary Rendition playset, by the way - which gives you all
the tools you need to kidnap the family pet and take him for
interrogation at a neighbor's house, where the rules of the Geneva
Convention may not apply. Loads of fun!

Mary Anna Custis was the only surviving child of
George Washington Parke Custis, George Washington’s step-grandson and
adopted son and founder of Arlington, and Mary Lee Fitzhugh Custis. One
of Mary’s early suitors was Sam Houston, and husband Robert E. Lee was
the son of Col. Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee and nephew of Richard
Henry Lee, the signer of the Declaration of Independence who wrote the
famous sentence, “That these Colonies are, and of right ought to be,
free and independent States.” Lincoln’s military seized their home,
Arlington, for remaining loyal to their State.

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

Unsavory Prelude to Preserving Lee’s Arlington:

“Following closely the model offered by the Mount Vernon movement,
preservationists in the South attempted to make museums out of buildings
associated with famous men. The first important post-Mount Vernon
preservation in the South was “Arlington,” sometimes called the Lee
Mansion. Instead of being the focal point of a [historic] preservation
drive, this building was really a spoil of war.

In May of 1861, shortly after the last private owner, Robert E. Lee, had
cast his lot with the South, federal troops occupied the mansion and
the grounds. An old friend of the Lees used the house as his
headquarters, apparently hoping to protect some of the Lee furnishings
that remained. Within a year the building became a residence for other
Union officers and their families.

Murray Nelligan, historian of Arlington Mansion, believes that Secretary
of War Edwin M. Stanton determined that the Lee family should never
occupy their home again. He placed a hospital on the grounds, along with
a freedmen’s village for Negro refugees from the South. Not stopping
there, he had a tax levied on the property which required payment by the
owner in person. A relative of Mrs. Lee offered to pay the tax, but the
authorities decided that such a procedure did not fulfill the letter of
the law, so the estate was put up for sale at public auction on January
11, 1864, in Alexandria, Virginia.

Bidding was anything but spirited, because many people suspected that
the confiscation and the sale of the mansion might be illegal. The
direct tax that had been levied on the Lees might be declared
unconstitutional, or the tax commission might later be found guilty of
rejecting payment by a relative. Once the sale had ended, the title
given to the government might have been considered invalid because the
Lees had not been paid the balance of the purchase price.

In spite of these uncertainties, the government was the highest bidder
and paid itself $26,800 for the property. Even the sale did not satisfy
Stanton’s resolve that the property should never fall into the hands of
the Lee family again. Through his urging, a national cemetery was
established on the grounds in May of 1864. General [Montgomery] Meigs,
representing the War Department, made sure that some graves were located
near the house itself.

Mrs. Lee, now a widow, petitioned Congress in 1872 for some form of
compensation for the loss of her estate. Her effort failed, but a few
years later a new figure took up the battle for control of Arlington.
General George Washington Custis Lee, son of Robert E. Lee, tried
another line of attack. In April of 1874 he argued that his claim to
Arlington was a just one, and then he offered to convey the estate to
Congress in return for a fair settlement. Congress did not need to reply
to his offer, for possession was indeed nine-tenths of the law. Lee’s
friends persuaded him to turn to the judiciary.

The Arlington case moved up through the courts, reaching the Supreme
Court in the 1880’s. On December 4, 1882, the Supreme Court decided that
George W.C. Lee was the rightful owner of Arlington and that the United
States Government had been trespassing. Fortunately, Lee was still
willing to settle for a fair price, rather than to force the government
to move Arlington National Cemetery!

Congress hastily appropriated $150,000 to pay General Lee for the
property; and on the fourteenth of May, 1883, twenty-two years after the
Union Army had seized it, the federal government acquired undisputed
title to Arlington.

Further proof that the federal “preservation” of Arlington had been an
act of revenge was the fact that the first real attempt to furnish and
restore the mansion did not come until 1921. Not until 1924 did Congress
pass a bill authorizing restoration of the house as it had been at the
time of the Lee occupancy. Thus, largely by accident, and for an
unsavory purpose, the federal government came to own its first historic
house.

(Presence of the Past, A History of the Preservation Movement in the
United States Before Williamsburg, Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., G.P. Putnam’s
Sons, 1965, pp. 63-65)

Senators currently have up to 30 hours of post-cloture debate on the
merits of a district court nominee; the new rule would permit only two
hours. This proposal would seriously undermine the rights of sitting
senators to call attention to problematic district court nominees and,
as a consequence, would enable the President to make more
philosophically questionable and professionally unqualified nominations
in the future.

Providing advice and consent to judicial nominees are critical,
constitutionally-enumerated responsibilities of U.S. senators. Those
confirmed to a federal judgeship retain their job during “good behavior”
(virtually for life), and can only be removed by House impeachment and
Senate conviction with a 2/3 vote. If the merits of a cabinet secretary
are worthy of 30-hours of debate, then any judge appointed for life
should be also.

From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation's sheriffs
are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the
administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack
Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what
they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

In New Mexico, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs
have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the
U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff's in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.

A host of Oregonsheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:

Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, "I
have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including
supporting the Second Amendment," in a letter to Coos County citizens.

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.'

Please diligently help to stop all legislation
banning weapons of any type including high capacity magazines and
assault weapons, and any management of ammunition. The move that the
president and other colleagues of yours to push the ban through as
quickly as possible is a clear attack on our 2nd amendment and the
constitution!

Sincerely,
Jay Anderson

Useful idiot

Thank you for
your message against gun controls. I appreciate the information you
provided. My objection is that there are virtually no controls on the
millions of guns that get into the wrong hands - kids in city ghettos
who have no moral standards and respond to impulse and bad environments.
Or guns in homes where they are accessible to children who shoot them
by accident, or even use them on their own family members; accidents in
which adults shoot children, or use them to kill children, or the easy
killing by suicide with guns. In countries where guns are not available
to the general population, there are very, very few such tragedies. Just
look at the statistics. The greatest number of gun violence is not from
mass shootings by mentally ill people, but just the sheer numbers of
carelessly or malevolently used guns.

As to the Second Amendment.
I believe that was wrongly decided by the U. S. Supreme Court. First,
it overturned 100 years of gun decisions that it is not a personal right
to bear arms, but only a right of the Militia, which is a military
branch -- along with the land and naval forces. I cite the following:
Article I, Section 8, 15. "The Congress shall have power: . .. To
provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"; Section 8, 16. "To provide
for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, . . .according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress."

This is in the same section as Congress' authority over the army and navy.
Amendment V: ". . . except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia when in actual service . . . "

Finally,
is the Supreme Court ever wrong? Yes and in big ways. It upheld slavery
in the Dred Scott decision, and in Plessy v. Ferguson it enshrined
segregation.

I own many rifles, but I only hunt with one of them. Feinstein's latest effort to disarm Americans would ban it. It would ban that entire shape of rifle (bullpup) as well as that entire category (semi-auto with a box magazine). So the whole claim that hunters are unaffected is a lie.

I own many rifles, but only one of them is my choice for home defense. It's the same rifle - there's no time to re-learn different controls under stress. I hunt once a year, but self-defense is a full-time need. So the same proposed legislation would also rob me of that. Classy.

How did we ever get the "compassionate liberals who love nature" to take the view that hunting is OK in general? Hunting for food has been largely regulated out of existence, but they claim to approve of hunting for fun. "Your hunting rifle is safe," they said. How did a recreational activity become more important than saving human lives from predators?

We all know that hunting rifles are offensive devices. With them, we can bring down an animal from a distance.
All the high-profile assassinations of the 20th century done with long
guns were effected with the common hunting rifles or nearly identical
military surplus bolt actions. So we know the congressional creatures who want us disarmed are more worried about weaker, shorter range but faster handling defensive arms.
In other words, they don't expect Americans to take the initiative and
go after them personally with a bolt 30-06 or a lever 30-30, but they do
want us stripped with the ARs and AKs suitable for fending off
freelance or government criminals. They view us as prey and themselves as meta-predators.
Politicians are by and large meta-predators. Many of them do not rape, rob or murder with their own hands but send others to do it for them. Gun control is the main way to make their minions more effective at subjugating the population. They aren't worried about the population taking the fight to them. They haven't been very wrong so far.

If they do succeed in disarming America, we would have a short window of opportunity to even the score. That would require bypassing all the enforcement organizations and going directly after those who give the orders. Maybe they ought to re-think that whole concept of not being afraid of the hunting rifles.

And maybe we should re-think the theory that we can give up our defensive arms and survive. The threat to the enemy isn't the guns themselves but the trained and motivated people who know how to use them.
Enough of the weapons will remain in circulation for retaliatory
action, and their motivation would have been supplied by the actions of
the disarmers of people themselves.
At that point, it would matter little if an AR or a single shot break
action or a box with ANFO gets used - people who wish to make a point
usually find a way. So the threat to them aren't the horns or hooves of the uppity citizens but their determination to remain independent.
That puts us at much higher right Risk After the confiscation of the
Firearms and Fighting Makes a Choice safer than complying. Katyn Is not just a village West of Smolensk.

Remembrance

To die for one’s country is not only an act of bravery, it is THE act of bravery. For soldiers, it is just an extension of their military career, a part of their duty. As leaders have asked their soldiers to sacrifice themselves for the good of the society, it is only right for leaders to go through the same motion. They should practice what they have preached.

As war is seen as a noble act, tu sat serves as redemption in case of defeat. It is also a way to tell the enemy: “You might have won the battle/war but you don’t deserve to win because you don’t have the chinh nghia (just cause).” And it is not only just cause: it is the moral belief that the cause they are fighting for deserves their total sacrifice. Continues below

Follow by Email

Counter

Core Creek Militia

==============================My sixth great grandfather, his wife, and five of his six children were killed in battle with the Tuscarora Indians at Core Creek, NC.

The Seven Blackbirds

==============================My third great grandfather was an Ensign in the Revolutionary War, and saved his unit's flag after being wounded at the Battle of Brandywine. He was also at Kingston (Kinston), Wilmington, Charleston, Two Sisters and Augusta. He was at the defeat at Brier Creek and also Bee Creek.

Requiem Aeternam -
Eternal Rest Grant unto Them
==============================
My second great grandfather was killed in action on May 3, 1863 at the Battle of Chancellorsville.
=============================
My great grandfather and great uncle knew all the men in the "Civil War Requiem" video as they were part of the 53rd NC which was the sole unit defending Fort Mahone. (Fort Mahone was named "Fort Damnation" by the Yankees) *Handpicked men of the 53rd (My great grandfather was one of these) made the final, night assault at Petersburg in an attempt to break Grant's line. This was against Fort Stedman which was a few miles to the slight northeast. They initially succeeded, but reinforcements drove them back. This video is made from photographs which were taken the day after the 53rd evacuated the lines the night before to begin the retreat to Appomattox. I have many more pictures taken by the same photographer, one of these shows a 14 year old boy and the other is the famous picture of the blond, handsome soldier with his musket.
===========================
*General Gordon promised the men a gold medal and 30 days leave if they accomplished their task and many years after the War my great grandfather wrote General Gordon, who was then governor of Georgia about this incident. They exchanged several letters which I have framed. See first link below.
===========================
*The Attack On Fort Stedman
============================
"His Colored Friends"
============================
Lee's Surrender
=============================
My Black NC Kinfolks
============================
Punished For Being Caught!

Great Grandfather Koonce

He was a drummer boy in the WBTS, survived the War only to die a few years later. He was caught in an ice storm on his way home, but instead of seeking shelter, continued on his horse until the end. His clothes had to be cut off and he died a few days later.